Reference Checking Techniques

Most people get Reference Checks wrong! Here's how to get them right 👉🏻 Throughout my journey, I've had to make 1000s of hires and often struggled with evaluation through the standard interviewing processes. I read somewhere that ~60% senior hires go wrong even after the most meticulous processes so I wondered how to improve the odds. 🤔 What I discovered is that there's no substitute for spending time with the candidates and conducting ‘unnamed’ ref checks through your own network. But what I also learnt is that not every ref check is the same and you can end up with very different outcomes depending on how it’s done. So, through reading and experience, I came with the best practices that I christened with the acronym "PEARL", and here it is for the FIRST time🔥 P - Promise Reciprocity Busy professionals don't dole out intel freely. So, you must offer to return the favor – something as simple as “If ever you need my help for a ref check or otherwise, I'd be happy to help". A senior leader will immediately see its value & perhaps become more ‘available’ on the call. E - Ensure Confidentiality This is critical, especially in India. Candor is not part of our culture, so assure the referrer that you understand the sensitivity of this call and will keep it 100% confidential. Also that you'd expect the same if they ever choose to call you for a reference. If you still sense some hesitancy, maybe throw an ‘offer’ of a good-faith NDA. Don’t worry, nobody ever takes it up but it makes them less guarded. A - Ask questions that force specificity (close-ended & open-ended) Broad questions like – "How was their work ethic?" “Does she work hard?” - are a complete waste of time. You need to ask 2nd order questions that make it comfortable for the referrer to answer without feeling like they're maligning the candidate. For eg - “How do you think we can help the candidate grow?" is better than "Can you tell me about their weaknesses?” R - Retrieve critical insights Actively listen and probe for specifics. Did the candidate consistently meet deadlines? Why or why not? How did they handle pressure? Did they run towards solving problems or look for directions to carry out? These details paint a picture beyond the resume. L - Learn rehire potential And finally, the golden question – "Are you willing to re-hire or work with the candidate again? Why or why not?" Regardless of what the referrer may have said up to this point, most senior folks will have a hard-time giving you a false or misleading response to this one. This is the true gauge of the candidate’s potential and one I put a lot of weight in. To conclude, thank the referrer for their time, assure confidentiality again and commit to a quid pro quo. This leaves the door open for other ref checks you might wish to do in the future 😏 So, there you have it - A PEARL from my collection🙌🏻 Do comment with something that’s worked for you that I may have missed :) #hiring #startups #leadership

Questions I ask when checking references When hiring for key positions, our last step is speaking with references. A phase for the final-finalists. When I talk to a supplied reference, I'm curious about nuance, feel, and paradox, not the obvious stuff. Below is a question library I might pull from. • What's something that would surprise us about them? • Specifically, any areas where you were surprised they weren't as good as you expected with A, B, or C? Or much better than expected with D, E, and F? • What's the difference between how they interview and how they deliver on the job? • Is there a difference between how a boss, a peer, or a direct report would describe them? If so, what's the difference? • If you were at another company, would you absolutely hire this person again for a similar role? • Who do they naturally gravitate to inside an organization? Or naturally avoid? • What are they better at than they think, and, on the flip side, worse at than they think? • What sort of things do they do that often go unnoticed or are under-appreciated? • What don't they get enough credit for? • Can you tell me about the kind of people they've hired? • Do they leave disagreements on good terms? • Are they more curious or critical about what they don't understand? • What's the one thing nearly everyone would say about them? • What kind of company feels like a natural fit? And which kind would be a challenge? • Can you describe a time when they changed their mind? From what to what, and what caused the change? • What's the best thing about working with them? And the hardest? • If you could change something about them, what would it be? • Are they better working with what they have, or working with what they want? • When have you seen them get in over their head? And how did that turn out? • Have you seen them get better at something? Worse? • Do they make other people better? How? • Are they better at taking credit or giving credit? • Are they more likely to adjust to something, or try to adjust the thing? • Primary blindspot? And bright spot? • As well as you know this person, what do you think their secret career ambition is? • If they hadn't been at your company, how would your company have been different? • Can you remember a time you wished you had their advice on a decision, but you didn't? • Have they ever changed your mind? • What's the easiest thing for them to communicate? And the hardest? • How have they changed during the time you knew them? • Do you still keep in touch even though you don't work together anymore? • What do they need to be successful? • Why do you think we'd be a better company with them on board? • Who else should I talk to that would have something to say about them? There are many more, but those are among the things I'm most curious about. Feel free to take them, use them, tell me they're great questions, or terrible ones. Either way, I hope you found them useful.

Let’s talk reference checks. I aim for 20 ‼️ reference calls per executive hire. When a candidate reaches late stages, I aim to speak with at least 10 (ideally 20) people who’ve worked with them. That includes former bosses, CEOs, peers, and direct reports. (A mix of references they provide and ones I find myself) I first ask: “When did you work together, and what was going on?” Then I let them talk for a bit. Then I start to butter them up a little bit because I want to help references talk about the bad stuff too. Next: “What was their biggest impact?” If the answer is cultural, I ask how it showed up in the numbers. If it’s numbers, I ask what cultural moves enabled them. From there: “When I talk to their biggest fans, what will I hear? What about their toughest critics?” Asking these questions together lets them celebrate the person while safely flagging possible weak spots. Then time for my favorite: “Think of the best leader you’ve ever worked with. That person is a 10 out of 10. Tell me the difference between this person and your 10/10.” What you hope to hear is, “They’re the 10 out of 10. This is the best person.” If you get that, you’re in a good spot. More often, you’ll hear something like, “They’re a 9. Really strong.” You start to get a little nervous when you hear “They’re a 7/10. Super solid.” That gives me more questions than answers. Great follow-ups to that are: - “What environments help them thrive? Where do they struggle?” - “Is there anything else I should know? Anything that would help us make this partnership a success?” Finally, and maybe most important: “Who else should I call?” You do this across 10 to 20 people, and you really have a good dossier on that person’s past experience. Then I go back to them and say, “Here’s what I heard, both where you’ll thrive at Zapier, and the areas where I still have questions.” Then you watch how they respond. Do they show a growth mindset and say, “Yep, that was me five years ago. Here’s how I’d approach it at Zapier”? Or do they brush it off? Hopefully you can pick up some tips and tricks from that approach to references. It’s a time-intensive process, for sure. But for executive roles, it’s worth it. What tips do you have for thorough references? – P.S. Is hiring top of mind for you? Our Global Head of Talent, Tracy St.Dic, is hosting a live AMA on AI for Talent Acquisition. We’ll have demos, stealable templates, and answers to your top AI hiring questions. August 20th. RSVP link in the comments below 👇

Most reference check calls are completely useless. Unless you're asking the right question to cut through the corporate politeness. You call someone pre-approved by the candidate. They say nice things. You learn nothing. You hire the person anyway. 6 months in, you're wondering how you missed what's now obvious to everyone. Only because you asked the wrong question to the reference. After a couple of bad hires and multiple iterations over the years, I've settled down with one: "If you were going to start a company, would you choose this person as your co-founder?" A co-founder relationship is the highest trust commitment. It's not "Are they good at their job?" It's "Would I bet my financial future and years of my life on this person?" That question forces the reference to move beyond "They're a nice person" and "They hit their metrics." It surfaces: - Do they have judgement you'd trust in uncertain situations? - Can they operate independently without guardrails? - Are they reliable when things get hard? - Would you trust them with incomplete information/high stakes? What the answers reveal: 1/ The immediate yes The reference lights up and talks about their work ethic, decision-making, and how they handled crises. No hedging. No "but..." These people are rare. When you get this answer, move fast. 2/ The thoughtful yes with caveats "Yes, but they'd need to work on X" or "Yes, if we were building in Y domain." This tells you they're strong but not universal. Match their strengths to your actual needs. 3/ The diplomatic no "They're great at... but I'm not sure we'd be aligned on..." or "They're solid, but I'd want different skills for a startup..." Not someone you want leading your company. This is where you're learning the real information. 4/ The pause and then no The reference hesitates before answering. Then gives you reasons that feel rehearsed. This is the red flag. They're being nice but honest about doubts. Why the co-founder framing works better than other questions: Bad reference Q: "Would you hire them again?" Answer: Almost always yes, because the reference is being polite. Better reference Q: "Are they a killer?" Answer: Depends on how direct the reference feels being. Best reference Q: "Would you choose them as your co-founder?" Answer: Forces the reference to imagine actual skin-in-the-game commitment. One more nuance is that some people won't be great co-founders but will be exceptional individual contributors or specialists. That's useful information too. "Would I pick them as a co-founder? No. But would I want them leading [specific function]? Absolutely." That tells you where they belong in your org. What does your reference check process look like right now?

The Reference Check That Saved Two People From a Bad Match Called a reference. Standard stuff—asked about the candidate's performance, work ethic, teamwork. Then I threw in my usual curve ball: "What's one thing this person needs to watch out for in their next role?" Long pause. "She's amazing with clients but struggles with internal politics. Put her in front of customers and she's brilliant. Internal stakeholder management? Not her strength." That one sentence changed everything. My client's role? Senior account manager with heavy internal coordination. Weekly cross-functional meetings. Constant negotiation between sales, ops, and product teams. I called the candidate. Laid it out straight. "The reference mentioned you're strongest in client-facing work but find internal politics challenging. This role is 60% internal coordination. Worth thinking about whether that's the right fit." She thought about it. Withdrew her application. Last I heard, she landed a pure client-facing role somewhere else and is doing well. Here's what I've learned from doing reference checks for many years: the question nobody asks reveals everything. And it protects both sides. Most people think reference checks are just about vetting candidates. They're about fit. You don't want to hire someone who'll struggle. Candidates don't want to accept offers for roles where they'll be miserable. I also ask: "What kind of environment helps them shine?" or "What would surprise me about working with them?" One reference told me a candidate was "great in small teams but gets lost in large organizations." The role was at a 2,000-person company. He withdrew after we talked. Found a 50-person startup instead. Reference checks aren't about catching lies. They're about understanding where you shine and where you don't. What environment lets you do your best work. As a candidate, you should want this information too. Better to know now than three months in when you're already looking for the exit. Good reference checks save everyone time and trouble. #Recruitment #HiringTips #CareerAdvice

The magic number to consistently make good hires: 10+ off-list reference checks. Some backdrop on how I arrived at this...  Over the years, I've come to trust myself more and trust myself less when it comes to hiring. I trust myself more to assess a candidate's viability on an initial interview. But, viability and hireability are not the same thing. I trust myself less to assess a candidate's hireability on an initial interview.  I don't believe you can fully assess someone so completely and thoroughly based on a first impression. I used to think I could until I realized that's my ego talking more than reality. There will be big gaps in understanding a person after an interview — even after a series of interviews. In my experience: Interviews determine viability. But specifically off-list reference checks determine hireability. There's a common thread when I look back at bad hiring decisions I've made — almost always, the decision relied: → too much on interviews → not enough on off-list reference checking On the flip side, I'm not sure I've made a bad hiring decision when I've done 10+ off-list references — and that's the basis for my magic number. When a candidate gives you a couple of executives from a prior company as references, call them, but also reach out to the other executives not on the list. When a candidate doesn't give you references from a company on their resume, find people at that company to talk with. Talk to the people who… → have worked with the candidate for years → know them well → are not on the reference list And you'll get a more informed view of that person. If the feedback of off-list references align with what you're looking for, you can move forward with confidence. Absent that, there will be gaps in the assessment that will lead to bad hiring decisions.

Reference calls take me about 15 minutes, and I'm listening for four specific things. First, I want concrete examples, not vague praise. If someone tells me a candidate is "great with people," I push them to give me a specific situation that proves it. Second, I dig into weaknesses. I want to understand what they're not great at and whether they actually take feedback well and adapt. Third, I ask about challenging situations. How do they handle difficult conversations or conflict? Fourth, I listen to tone. Sometimes what matters isn't the words themselves, but the hesitation or energy behind them. Anything short of genuine enthusiasm signals a neutral or negative reference.

We do 10-20 references before we hire anyone for a manager or leadership role at Unify. At 68 people, a very good or bad manager has a profound positive or negative impact on the company.   References are some of the strongest signals we have. Here's the exact system we follow:   I start reference checking in the early stages of conversations with the candidate. I'll tactfully text people they've worked with to get a quick pulse check on if there are any red flags that I'm not seeing.   Great candidates get "They're one of the top 2-3 people I've ever worked with; I'd kill to work with them again," while good ones get "Here are their strengths and weaknesses."   If there's no rave reviews at this stage, I often move on.   When we get later stage, I like to ask them to name 2-3 people they've worked closely with and predict what each would say about working with them. Then I get in touch with those people and see how self-aware the candidate is.   Leaders aren't one-dimensional, so I actively seek out 1-2 critical reviews to understand their specific weaknesses and how they handle tough situations. These also help me to understand how they've grown. It's a red flag if they haven't made any strides in what was a glaring weakness 5 years ago.   This system has helped us filter down to the best talent - curious what signals others rely on for making leadership hires?

Every hiring manager should make time for reference checks, especially for leadership roles or those heavily requiring soft skills. While interviews offer insights into a candidate’s background and skill, they only provide one side of the story. Reference checks provide an external perspective, allowing you to make more informed hiring decisions. I recommend asking candidates for references and also seeking out objective references they may not directly provide. Schedule at least 30 minutes to ensure plenty of time to ask questions. Before the call, do some research on each reference’s relationship with the candidate, how long they worked together, and their professional connection. Top 5 Reference Check Questions 1. Why do you think the candidate chose to leave your company? This question offers valuable insight into the candidate’s motivations and career aspirations. It can also provide the other side of the story if the exit from the previous company was at all contentious. I prefer to work with people who do their best to leave places in good condition and not burn bridges. 2. Is this person one of the top 5 people you’ve ever worked with? Why? Ranking forces specificity and offers a clearer sense of how this candidate measures up. I find this more insightful than simply asking if they’d work with the person again, as it provides a more direct assessment. If a candidate provides a reference that does not absolutely put them in their top 5 that is a red flag. 3. What’s one area this person improved in while working with you? I put a lot of weight on a candidate’s ability to grow and adapt. This question can reveal how quickly they enhance their value on a team. It’s often helpful to follow up by exploring the process they undertook to improve and how much help the team or company provided. 4. Can you give an example of a time they made a difficult decision or tackled a tough problem? This question is essential for assessing resilience and problem-solving. It’s important to hear about specific challenges the candidate handled, which reveals their grit and determination. I really look for an example of the candidate doing a hard thing that helped the team or company succeed. 5. What was the best thing about working with them? And the most challenging? Unlike traditional strengths and weaknesses questions, this phrasing highlights the candidate’s impact as a teammate. It can reveal aspects of their work style, personality, and how they interact and communicate with others. I love to hear that a candidate is a joy to work with because of their positive attitude, which often has nothing to do with their skill in the role. BONUS: What did you learn from them, and what did they learn from you? I love this question because it often brings out unexpected answers. It reveals the candidate’s openness to feedback and their potential for growth. I want to work with people that are coachable and love to learn, but also enjoy teaching others.

How professional LPs do reference calls? Here's what I've learned from watching the best 👇 ◾ Context is everything when doing reference calls. The same feedback means totally different things depending on the organization: - "Struggled with consensus" at a political firm = strong conviction - "Great team player" at a high-bar firm = actually exceptional I think superficial negatives are often huge positives. And vice versa. ◾ Before ANY reference call, I always try to understand: - What type of organization was it? - What does that org actually value? - How does the referrer relate to the candidate? You need to calibrate what you hear against who's saying it. ◾ Which brings me to this: backdoor references > frontdoor references. ONE backdoor reference (someone you find yourself) can be worth 100 frontdoor ones (provided by the manager). Why? Frontdoor references are pre-selected, pre-warned, pre-coached. Backdoor references tell you what's really going on. ◾ Where to find backdoor references: - Co-investors from past syndicates - Portfolio founders (especially ones who said no) - Former LPs who didn't re-up - Service providers (lawyers, fund admins, recruiters) Critical rule: Always get permission first. ◾ Get very specific. Broad statements are garbage: - "They're exceptional" - "One of the best I've worked with" I believe these say more about the org's values than the individual's skills. ◾ Force specificity: - "What's an example of when they showed that?" - "Stack rank them against your top 5." - "Why 'fine' instead of 'great'?" If they can't offer details, be very skeptical. The details make feedback actually useful. ◾ Build trust and create space for honesty. Start with: "I'm [name], doing diligence on [manager]. This is confidential - I'll share themes with my team, nothing attributed to you." Being clear on confidentiality upfront puts people at ease. ◾ Never ask about "weaknesses" directly. You'll get rehearsed nonsense: "Works too hard", "Cares too much." Instead, use hypotheticals: - "If they quit after 6 months, what would be the reason?" - "What team would you build around them to complement their skills?" ◾ Silence is your friend. I assume some of the most insightful comments come when people are just filling dead air: "They're great... [pause] ...though they did struggle when things got political." Never interrupt the silence. ◾ Why most LPs fail at references: - Arrogance: "I can read people in a pitch" - Only using frontdoor references - Asking broad questions - Taking feedback at face value References are gamefilm. You're watching how someone actually performed, not how they pitch. ◾ The complete framework: - BEFORE: Research the referrer and their org context - DURING: Build trust, get specific examples, use hypotheticals, embrace silence - AFTER: Follow up with every referrer Minimum: 3 frontdoor + 5 backdoor references. More tactics below.